The left is certain to claim Pope Francis to be a socialist, since he professes and demonstrates a profound love for the poor. But that's not socialism. Every Christian should have a love for the poor; socialism is merely a kleptocratic movement which usurps and perverts that. Unfortunately, it seems that not a lot of Jesuits appreciate that. Pope Francis sounds like he is one that does.

So before the Left (or the anti-Catholic elements of the far right) convince you otherwise, here is what Pope Francis actually says:

The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers. The challenge to eradicate poverty cannot be truthfully met as long as the poor continue to be dependents of the State. The government and other organizations should instead work to create the social conditions that will promote and protect the rights of the poor and enable them to be the builders of their own future. To those who are now promising to fix all your problems, I say, Go and fix yourself. Have a change of heart. Get to confession, before you need it even more! The current crisis will not be improved by magicians from outside the country and nor will [improvement] come from the golden mouth of our politicians, so accustomed to making incredible promises. "

Sounds like Ronald Reagan's speech-writers found a new employer, huh? Now, this is an admittedly old speech, from the Argentine currency crisis. Does he still preach that line? His first mass as pope didn't get into economics, but it did explicitly chastise those who seek government intervention as the cure for social ills:

We can walk as much we want; we can build many things, but if we do not confess Jesus Christ, nothing will avail. We will become a compassionate NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of Christ. When one does not walk, one stalls. When one does not built on solid rocks, what happens? What happens is what happens to children on the beach when they make sandcastles: everything collapses, it is without consistency. When one does not profess Jesus Christ  I recall the phrase of Leon Bloy  Whoever does not pray to God, prays to the devil. When one does not profess Jesus Christ, one professes the worldliness of the devil.

When we walk without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, and when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord. We are worldly, we are bishops, priests, cardinals, Popes, but not disciples of the Lord.

I would like that all of us, after these days of grace, might have the courage  the courage  to walk in the presence of the Lord, with the Cross of the Lord: to build the Church on the Blood of the Lord, which is shed on the Cross, and to profess the one glory, Christ Crucified. In this way, the Church will go forward.

That's quite a notion of devil worship: replacing the spread of the gospel with a "compassionate NGO." Not exactly FDR, here.

I realize that these statements will not be soon confused with Milton Friedman, either. Economic policies are not the purview of the Church, and Pope Francis, for one, seems to understand that. But Pope Francis also understands that the busybody state chokes off the gospel, which is the true source of joy. And he is willing to fight to remind his fellow priests of that.

The liberals think ‘poor’ is somebody in occupy wall street. They have no idea what kind of poverty there is in South America.

I don’t want to project my own feelings on the pope; but, I’m guessing that he would look at an abled bodied person who refused to work as somebody who has committed the sin of Sloth. And most occupy types can throw in Envy, Greed, Wrath, and Pride.

2
posted on 03/15/2013 12:37:09 PM PDT
by lacrew
(Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)

To me, the words of Pope Francis strike a realistic and healthy balance between the role of the state and the regulation of capital in the elimination of poverty. The gov’t should promote an economic system that allows people to provide for themselves, yet recognizes that the common good is not served by having a few possess all the wealth.

Perhaps I should be more careful in my wording: The values which construct economic policies are the purview of the Church, but the Catholic Church claims for itself an authority for doctrinal theology which it lacks in economics. Pope Francis promotes the values of freedom and compassion towards the poor, or, in more distinctly Catholic socioeconomic terms, subsidiarity and solidarity. The means to achieve those values requires an openness to the secular sciences, such as economics.

Catholics are generally fiscally liberal and socially conservative. They want the government (people) to give to the poor because it is what the church teaches, but they are strong believers in marriage between a man and woman, are strong pro-lifers, and do not support the use of contraceptives.

The distinction between the two meanings of Capitalism is in fact made in the social encyclical (1991) Centesimus Annus ( para. 42 ). And the difference made there comes down to that between the normal and the abnormal. The encyclical is considering whether we can say that Capitalism is good or bad. If by capitalism is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a business economy, market economy or simply free economy.

In this sense, it is right to speak of a struggle against an economic system, if the latter is understood as a method of upholding the absolute predominance of capital, the possession of the means of production and of the land, in contrast to the free and personal nature of human work. In the struggle against such a system, what is being proposed as an alternative is not the socialist system, which in fact turns out to be state capitalism, but rather a society of free work of enterprise and of participation.

"The Libtards are grasping at Pope Franciss adamant promotion of Social Justice, which is the religious cousin of Liberalism."

There are a couple strains of "social justice" within contemporary Catholicism and within the Christianity as a whole.

Certainly, there is the branch of liberation theology that is more a dark shadow of outright communism than it is a cousin of mere liberalism. Then, there are movements akin to "Distributism," which is quite well aligned with traditional Christian emphasis on charity (freely given, not compelled) and places much value on the rights to private property. Many on the right see "distributism" and fail to differentiate it from "redistributionism."

From what I've seen and read so far, Pope Francis is no fan of heavy handed statism, and for the time being, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that his economic views are consistent with that.

When Catholics came to the United States, they faced bitter economic repression. Where they could not find leadership roles in businesses at first, they did manage, due to their numbers, to elect people in cities who would open the doors of government work to them. Civil service, such as police, firefighters, soldiers and teachers, was a means to the middle class. Further, the Church was very unionist, at a time when unions stood for decent pay and working conditions, rather than emezzlement, abortion, homosexuality and bloated government bureaucracies. (The merger and nationalization of local unions into the AFL-CIO was tragic.) So practically, yes, American Catholics have been long affiliated with the Democratic party.

At the same time, the Catholic Church in Europe was the last (unsuccessful, sadly, in most cases) against the anti-clerical socialist movements. She forcefully condemned socialism, and pioneered the economic theory of subsidiarity. Unfortunately, she also became infected with freemasons, and the New World became dominated by left-wing American priests, and the heresies which in the Protestant world were called “the social gospel” took root in the Catholic Church as “liberation theology.”

John Paul II condemned liberation theology, and nourished domestic clergy in Latin America and Africa. But in the midst of expressing so much concern for the poor, he insufficiently spread the gospel of subsidiarity, the notion that authority should default to the simplest social structure even theoretically capable of accomplishing a socially necessary task. (Think states rights in the context of national policy, but community rights in the context of state policy, and individual freedom in the context of communities.)

John Paul’s answer to communism was solidarity, the notion that a hulking bureaucracy cannot be responsive to personal social means. But his critiques of plutocracy in the West led to several opportunities for the economic left (still at heart holding to liberation theology) to exploit his linguistic limitations. For instance, Americans conflate “economic freedom” with “Capitalism.” To Europeans, “capitalism” means what we would call, “plutocracy.” So when John Paul the European decried “capitalism,” American liberals portrayed him as opposing free markets. And they conflated in so many minds, “socialism” and “charity.”

For example, the church in Germany should have been speaking out against the economic policies of the the socialist NAZI regime...that they weren't more muscular on that was a problem.

This displays an appalling historical ignorance. There were members of the Church who complied (there are always collaborators, unfortunately) but by and large the Church held firm and many of Her clergy and laypeople suffered greatly in the concentration camps for it!

23
posted on 03/15/2013 1:09:47 PM PDT
by pgyanke
(Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)

Socialists do not HAVE a love FOR the poor. What they have is a love of being in control of the poor. And, to that end, they want to make EVERYONE poor. Except themselves, of course. Someone has to be in charge.

27
posted on 03/15/2013 1:29:31 PM PDT
by SoldierDad
(Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)

I’m not understanding the reasoning for your comment. The left would have us believe that socialism is a form of government whereby the poor are taken care of. Hence their stand that the new Pope is a socialist based upon his “love” for the poor. Their belief that socialism is good for the poor is an untruth. Under socialism the poor suffer greatly. The Catholic Church, through their “charity”, does more to help the poor than anything socialism could do. The Church’s “charity” is not socialism.

33
posted on 03/15/2013 2:05:24 PM PDT
by SoldierDad
(Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)

the Church held firm and many of Her clergy and laypeople suffered greatly in the concentration camps for it!

One of the images that stuck in my mind’s eye while visiting the Holocaust Museum in Washington was a photo of a group of priests, in clerical collars lined up in front of a Nazi firing squad. So yes, the Nazis didn’t just persecute Jews. In fact, pope John Paul II’s own parish priest was executed.

What you mean is will he publicly denounce them as excommunicated, and force his priests to withhold communion so as to not desecrate the body of Christ, or permit sinners to drink poison unto themselves.

Biden, Pelosi, et al, are already excommunicated, and they are well aware of that fact; the scandal is that they continue to portray themselves as Catholics.

Pope Francis wrote a document as president of the Latin American episcopal conference, approved by Pope Benedict, calling on all the bishops of Latin America to publicly proclaim the excommunication of politicians who supported abortion. He has famously denounced the social radicals running Argentina, Christina Kirchner and her now-departed husband, Nestor (Ernesto).

Public excommunication is an act of a local bishop. Benedict demanded it. When Cardinal Wuerl failed to transmit those demands to the rest of the American bishops, Benedict promoted the bishop who most vocally denounced pro-abortion Catholics receiving communion, the bishop of St. Louis, Cardinal Burke, to be head of the Catholic Supreme Court. He also gave huge promotions to any other bishops who followed suit. But Benedict did a poor job of media relations with America, and his actions have not been made clear to Americans. I hope Pope Francis finds a way to be more forceful.

But just so you know, church-going Catholics voted 67% for Romney; nominal Catholics voted only 23% for Romney, so among those who can be reached, most are being reached. (Church-going white evangelicals voted 78% for Romney, but thats not much different from non-church going white evangelicals.) The ones who arent being reached are the Hispanics, who dont go to church and vote pretty much like black protestants. I hope Pope Francis is much better able to reach them.

42
posted on 03/15/2013 8:40:01 PM PDT
by dangus
(Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)

Sounds good. The best and most loving service Christians can do for the poor is teach them to fish. Within a Christian culture and education, the poor can adopt a life and mind that will lift them out of poverty.

I went to different schools around the country because my dad was in the Navy with a job that required we move just about every year. The best school I went to was run by Jesuits.

I got to stay with them for two years and I was so far ahead after that, I sailed through school(s).
They really knew what they were doing and they were not pro sin (like the nuns I encountered). They had a strong spirit of Christ and it was joyful, relaxed, ethical and intellegent. It filled the children, too.

I usually moved along without resistence but I tossed a fit when I had to leave that school. All the kids were miserable on that move. It was back to the salt mines...

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.